Hi,

Sven Neumann wrote:

I'd like to get some feedback on the following plan for the Blur plug-in
(details are in http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=142318):

The plan is to remove the randomize and repeat functionality. That would allow us to also remove the (quite confusing) dialog.

Sounds OK to me.

Cheers,
Dave.

sven@gimp.org (2004-06-07 at 1149.52 +0200):

The plan is to remove the randomize and repeat functionality. That would allow us to also remove the (quite confusing) dialog. Filters->Blur->Blur would then be a simple blur with a 3x3 convolution kernel. It would be fast and easy to use but of course we it would be less powerful. So the question is, is anyone actually using this functionality? Are there scripts out there that rely on plug-in-blur-randomize to be available?

Why not just ditch it completly then? If it just a 3x3 convolution that you have to manually repeat, and there are already other filters and scripts that do the same. The point of repeat is not having to rerun manually to get a "bigger radius" blur.

Someone was doing a version that used another channel to control the repeats, which is a nice improvement. If that is accepted as improvement it should stay, otherwise I see no reason to keep it along the generic matrix one and its presets.

GSR

sven@gimp.org (2004-06-07 at 1649.35 +0200):

Sorry, but what other scripts or plug-ins are you referring to? IMO it would be a good thing to have a simple and fast plug-in that does the job w/o a dialog and I fail to see what other plug-in would provide this functionality.

Convolution matrix, and there are scripts floating around that give matrix presets.

GSR

GSR - FR wrote:

sven@gimp.org (2004-06-07 at 1649.35 +0200):

Sorry, but what other scripts or plug-ins are you referring to? IMO it would be a good thing to have a simple and fast plug-in that does the job w/o a dialog and I fail to see what other plug-in would provide this functionality.

Convolution matrix, and there are scripts floating around that give matrix presets.

GSR

calling the convolution matrix plug in and scripts to preset it a simple replacement ?
Please rephrase that to a powerful replacement that can be used by the more then average(new) gimp user.
Would this mean having a script-fu menu entry fill convolution matrix for : blur/sharpen/edge detect etc.

1. simple and fast blur operation as it is known in other graphical programs will help new gimp users to get arround. 2. when using the randomize option the preview makes no "real" sense since by nature you'll never get twice the same result. 3.Instead of executing the blur option multiple times one could use a bigger kernel (5x5, 7x7) as often used. This would suggest a dialog box. 4. If a bigger blur is needed use the gausian blur instead of repeating. 5.Writing a script to repeat the plugin multiple times would be a better option then calling a script to fill the convolution matrix. at least the script could be used to repeat all plug-ins. Or why not add a menu option repeat last plugin n times.

Geert

geert.jordaens@pandora.be (2004-06-07 at 1759.17 +0200):

calling the convolution matrix plug in and scripts to preset it a simple replacement ?

Well, what would you call a script that just puts a menu entry and calls convolution matrix with a fixed matrix?

Please rephrase that to a powerful replacement that can be used by the more then average(new) gimp user.
Would this mean having a script-fu menu entry fill convolution matrix for : blur/sharpen/edge detect etc.

Those already exists. The ones I got have some extra controls, but nothing disallows making no dialog versions.

2. when using the randomize option the preview makes no "real" sense since by nature you'll never get twice the same result.

Depends how the code is done, using pseudo random and taking into account 2d coord it should provide repeatable results.

4. If a bigger blur is needed use the gausian blur instead of repeating.

They are different things, though, box vs guassian.

GSR

GSR - FR wrote:

Well, what would you call a script that just puts a menu entry and calls convolution matrix with a fixed matrix?

The main reason not to use convmatrix is that internally it always does a 5x5 convolution, regardless of the matrix entries. This means it should take almost three times as long as the 3x3 convolution in blur.c; in fact, a little testing on a 5000 x 10000 image shows it taking over four times as long. Otherwise using convmatrix would probably be the right solution.

Best, -- Bill

______________ ______________ ______________ ______________ Sent via the KillerWebMail system at primate.ucdavis.edu

Sven Neumann wrote:

I'd like to get some feedback on the following plan for the Blur plug-in
(details are in http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=142318):

The plan is to remove the randomize and repeat functionality.

[...]

So the question is, is anyone actually using this functionality? Are there scripts out there that rely on plug-in-blur-randomize to be available?

Is it possible to remove the dialog without removing the options?

Also, I skimmed the bug report, which was initially about a preview. Another random thought (based on my previous 'impossible' one: Does it seem possible to make a 'fixed' preview area somewhere (maybe in the layers dialog?) that all plugins have access to, instead of reimplementing each one? Then maybe have this preview area call into the plugin to update itself when the user interacts with it?

I realize this may not be a practical thing, but it may be something that someone else could run with ...

Chris

Sven Neumann wrote:

So the question is, is anyone actually using this functionality? Are there scripts out there that rely on plug-in-blur-randomize to be available?

Christopher Curtis wrote:

Is it possible to remove the dialog without removing the options?

Yes, it is possible, that's why Sven asked the question. The options don't have any obvious utility, though (repeat blurring is nothing more than a very slow way of producing a Gaussian blur), so there does not seem to be any good reason for keeping the options unless deleting them will break something that already exists.

Also, I skimmed the bug report, which was initially about a preview. Another random thought (based on my previous 'impossible' one: Does it seem possible to make a 'fixed' preview area somewhere (maybe in the layers dialog?) that all plugins have access to, instead of reimplementing each one? Then maybe have this preview area call into the plugin to update itself when the user interacts with it?

This could be done with some cleverness, but I would oppose it on the grounds that the preview should be as near as possible to the controls.

Best,
-- Bill

______________ ______________ ______________ ______________ Sent via the KillerWebMail system at primate.ucdavis.edu

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, GSR - FR wrote:

Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 15:10:30 +0200 From: GSR - FR
To: gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu, gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu Subject: [Gimp-user] Re: Blur plug-in

sven@gimp.org (2004-06-07 at 1149.52 +0200):

The plan is to remove the randomize and repeat functionality. That would allow us to also remove the (quite confusing) dialog. Filters->Blur->Blur would then be a simple blur with a 3x3 convolution kernel. It would be fast and easy to use but of course we it would be less powerful. So the question is, is anyone actually using this functionality? Are there scripts out there that rely on plug-in-blur-randomize to be available?

Why not just ditch it completly then? If it just a 3x3 convolution that you have to manually repeat, and there are already other filters and scripts that do the same. The point of repeat is not having to rerun manually to get a "bigger radius" blur.

If there was a more convenient way to save a 3x3 convolution matrix than having to write a script-fu script around the convulotion matrix plugin then there would not be any reason to keep the blur plugin but at the moment manually typing in a convulation matrix gets really annoying really fast.

- Alan

On 7 Jun 2004, Sven Neumann wrote:

Well, what would you call a script that just puts a menu entry and calls convolution matrix with a fixed matrix?

I'd call it a waste of resources. Actually such a simple task as applying a convolution kernel should probably be done completely in the core.

*chuckles* I agree.

Rockwalrus@aol.com

On 07.06.2004, at 20:04, William Skaggs wrote:

The main reason not to use convmatrix is that internally it always does a 5x5 convolution, regardless of the matrix entries. This means it should take almost three times as long as the 3x3 convolution in blur.c; in fact, a little testing on a 5000 x 10000 image shows it taking over four times as long. Otherwise using convmatrix would probably be the right solution.

I agree with Sven here that convolution should be done by the core (probably even support SIMD, where available) and be usable for all plugins and integrated tools. IMHO it would also make sense to offer special functions which allow for 3x3, 4x4, 5x5 and maybe also generic sizes of matrices for optimum speed and cache utilization.

Servus, Daniel